Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

WrappedObject/Object/NativeMethod aren't genuinely Sync

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#366 3 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
25/100
Tipo di issue
Refactoring
Chiarezza
Da chiarire
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
rust
Ambito
operating-systems

Direzione di ricerca

Start by reading the linked comment on #324 and tracing the relationships among NativeMethod, Object, WrappedObject, and NoSendInterpreter. Compare the three approaches described in the issue, including how interpreter-specific closures and object transfer should work. Done means the chosen design makes the Send and Sync guarantees accurate without losing support for non-Send native methods.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

This issue is born out of my comment on #324 about NativeMethod.

NativeMethod does not have type bounds enforcing that its contained closure is Send. Therefore Object and WrappedObject can't be Send either.

To avoid cluttering #324 - there's actually a reasonably straightforward fix for FixedRegisters, I'm going to continue the NativeMethod discussion here.

Firstly, should we allow non-Send NativeMethods for NoSendInterpreter? My feeling is yes, we should. It stands to reason that if you're using a non-Send interpreter you have a good reason for that, so we should accept closures that work with the types you're using.

Secondly, how?

The fact that WrappedObject can contain a NativeMethod (via Object), and NativeMethod refers to WrappedObject means there's effectively a cycle in type references.

I can think of three ways:

  1. Deal with horrendous generic types and bounds - I don't think there's a straightforward way of limiting the generic types, they'll touch pretty much every other type in the crate. I'm still not entirely sure it actually is even possible, because of the cycle in type references.
  2. Remove NativeMethod from Object completely. Then Object is effectively AmlObject, we'd need a NonAmlObject to hold NativeMethod and anything else we think of in future. Plus wrapper types that could hold either.
    • This would allow objects to be passed between two different interpreters, as they could be now.
  3. Turn NativeMethod into a kind of index - perhaps an AmlName, or even just an integer - then store the actual closures in a map in the namespace.
    • In this case, objects are less easily passed between two interpreters, as the NativeMethods would be different.
    • I haven't fully worked out how any reference counting would work to ensure the closures are freed when needed, but it seems tractable.

I'd probably go for option 3, since it reduces the distinction between NativeMethod and other object types. This hopefully makes it less likely we'd introduce bugs related to it in future.

But thoughts from @IsaacWoods and anyone else interested are most welcome.

Lingua principale
Rust
Stelle
248
Fork
95
Merge medio
3g 14h
PR unite (30g)
9

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di rust-osdev/acpi

Tutte le issue di rust-osdev/acpi

Issue simili

Altre issue su Rust

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.